Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahrekord super tanker

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shahrekord super tanker[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable Ship. Dengero (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - are we sure it's unremarkable? It's Iranian, very large~~, and nuclear-powered~~, which ought to ring some bells somewhere. World Maritime News. The article is already cited including the Boston Globe. Aren't ships of a certain size presumed notable, in any case? Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 2 refrences from Yahoo news/ Associated Press asserts notability. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the references? The Yahoo pieces don't even mention this ship, they are general pieces about the Iranian civil nuclear ship program. As does the Boston Globe piece, which seems to be based on the same AP article as the second Yahoo one? Morwen - Talk 19:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've leafed through several more refs. They do seem to be repeating the same stuff. The nuclear bit does not apply to this particular ship. Some of the articles claim the ship is an ocean liner but it appears to be simply a container ship (or do we make that a supertanker...), so some of the sources feel a bit flaky. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The ship in question is IRAN SHAHR-E-KORD (IMO 9270684). According to Equasis, it's a container ship, not a supertanker nor an ocean liner, and it's definitely not nuclear-powered. I have nothing against keeping the article, but it requires heavy copyediting to meet WP:SHIPS quality standards. Tupsumato (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ships of this size generally have a presumption of notability. Looks like it needs renaming to Shahr-E-Kord though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep this. I think ship is notable. --Shorthate (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reason for thinking it is notable? Lukeno94 (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have little or no clue about ships, but this article seems like it was a mess from what I've read above - it's not nuclear powered, it's not a super-tanker, it's not even been named correctly. It now appears to be a lot better, but still hugely lacking in information for a supposedly notable ship. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Lukeno94. ●Mehran ^Debate● 05:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I removed the remains of the nuclear nonsense from the article and added the only reliable reference I could find (Equasis) as well as another site with photographs of the ship in 2010. As one of the first attempts to build a large merchant vessel in Iran, I would consider this ship notable enough for an article. However, there is very little to write about and it seems that the ship is not even in service yet. Also, judging from the pictures, it's just a normal container/general cargo ship with no special features. Tupsumato (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.